Nice try at avoiding the question at hand.  You want to discuss your unrelated issue, go make a diary post.

Read the rest of the speech instead of just this one line.  That isn't the "lynchpin" of anything, just one factor.  The notion that Al Qaeda and Iraq had a collaborative relationship wasn't thoroughly debunked until the September 11th commission did so in 2004, well after this vote.

Anyway the answers to your question are in the very speech you're quoting from... not that I suppose you are actually looking for answers.

How come you didn't put the whole quote, which said there was no link to 9/11?

"He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."

And of course, this part of the speech is always left out:

" While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998."

...

"My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."

...

"And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."

but i'm pretty sure you knew that already.  for the same reasons that barack knew it was immoral to invade iraq before we did it (relying on the just war tradition), he understood that once we got in, we had to be careful about how we disengaged.  if you didn't realize it, we're not somalia.

the other reason why barack always has said that we have to be as careful about getting out as we were careless in getting in is because he actually understands american politics and recognizes that republicans will try to use our withdrawal as a wedge issue against democrats.  you may not care whether democrats win elections, but barack has proven selflessly that he does.  so setting up the "who lost iraq" argument is not part of barack's agenda.

but i'm sure you knew that already.  you undoubtedly support a candidate who made the immoral choice because she was scared of bush and rove and how they would use her vote against her.  just another one of those capitulations that hillary has done throughout her career -- even if she didn't wear a pink dress when she did it.  hillary was wrong about iraq, and barack was right.  then as now.

but i'm sure you knew that already (assuming that you're not one of those pro-war democrats)...

For someone who talks about future, and harps about past, this is a dumbass diary.

It is like asking me why i went to shit on a potty instead of the actual toilet - because at that time in the past, I only knew about potty!

If you think you are smart by claiming something as a hindsight, then you need to raise your IQ.

Blix wanted the authorization so they could force through unfettered inspections of Iraq's suspected weapon cache and, hopefully, prevent war. Hillary agreed that inspections were our best shot at stopping Bush and gave Blix the authorization we asked for.

Bush didn't abide by the terms of the authorization and that's on him.

Hillary voted for the authorization to give Bush leverage to go to war IF it was necessary because Sadaam wouldn't let the inspectors in. She was NEVER for the war because Sadaam did let the inspectors in.

Hillary was in essence voting for the threat of war, not war itself. Had Gore been president, he might have wanted the same tool Bush had (the threat of war) to force Sadaam to let the inspectors in, but he would not have invaded once the inspectors were let in.

Bush is the only one who made the final decision to invade Iraq. None of the Democrats running this year, including Clinton, would have invaded Iraq.

Obama gave a speech against the war. Obama did not give a speech against the Iraq resolution. BTW, he gave that speech while he was running for reelection in the state senate in one of the most liberal districts in the country. He couldn't have said anything else there. It was not great courage on his part. Since being in the U.S. senate, he has voted the exact same way as Clinton on Iraq.